Two anti-fracking measures proposed for Colorado’s November ballot threaten to split the state’s Democrats and put Hillary Clinton in a tough spot politically — while offering the oil and gas industry a chance to try to push her back to the center on energy issues.

State officials have until early September to decide whether activists have gathered enough signatures to secure a November vote on the two proposals, which would limit where oil and gas drillers can frack and would allow cities to ban the practice. But other environmentalists, alarmedby the industry’s multimillion-dollar opposition campaign, fear that their movement will suffer a demoralizing defeat if the two proposals make it in front of the voters. So the major green groups are mostly avoiding the fight.

"If I were a betting person, I would not bet they would get on the ballot," one Colorado environmentalist said of the anti-fracking initiatives, insisting on anonymity to speak candidly. The person added: "If they do get on the ballot, the oil and gas industry will just pummel this state. Democrats and moderate Republicans won’t want to touch this issue for quite some time."

Another environmental advocate in the state agreed that the initiatives have "a pretty tough path to victory" if they make it onto the ballot, adding: "I’d rather not see the measures crushed at the ballot box."

Meanwhile, some in the industry see the ballot initiatives as a chance to ramp up the pressure on Democrats like Clinton, who has been leading GOP nominee Donald Trump by double digits in the latest Colorado polls.

"These fracking measures are a game changer for the election in Colorado. It puts Colorado right back in play and exposes a rift in the Democratic Party on energy issues," said one oil industry consultant in the state. "This is the last thing Hillary Clinton and Sen. [Michael] Bennet [D-Colo.] want to have happen going into the fall."

Local fracking restrictions have become a fervent cause for activists in states like Colorado, Pennsylvania and even parts of Texas, where some residents have expressed alarm at oil and gas rigs popping up near their homes, schools and farms.

Clinton and Trump have each embraced the spirit behind the ballot initiatives, saying voters should be able to decide whether they want oil and gas drilling near them.

But Clinton also has close ties with Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who has praised the jobs created by the fracking-driven oil and gas boom, and who was instrumental in keeping similar anti-fracking initiatives off the ballot in 2014. This year’s anti-fracking proposals face opposition from prominent Democrats like former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, who was Interior secretary during President Barack Obama’s first term, and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb.

A divisive referendum on oil and gas production would increase calls for Clinton to explicitly take a side. She would have to choose between alienating grassroots green activists — whom she tried to lure during the primaries by opposing Arctic drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline — or spoiling her more recent efforts to attract moderate Republicans.

Top Hickenlooper policy aide Alan Salazar joined the Clinton campaign in June, and appears to align with his former boss in support of fracking's economic benefits to the state. "On fracking [Bernie] Sanders keeps it simple (minded)," he tweeted in March during a Democratic debate between Clinton and her primary opponent. "He opposes it. Does he also oppose cheaper gasoline?"

Another former Hickenlooper aide, Tracee Bentley, is part of the industry's fight against the initiatives as head of the American Petroleum Institute's Colorado chapter.

Environmentalists and drillers alike are preparing for a torrent of industry-backed ads and lobbying over the fracking initiatives if the ballot fight is officially joined. Activists would find themselves badly outspent by the oil and gas industry and are so far finding little support from the green establishment.

Two oil and gas companies with large footprints in the state, Noble and Anadarko, gavemore than $11million this year to Protect Colorado, an umbrella group launched to fight the initiatives. That represents the bulk of the more than $15 million that industry supporters have raised overall. Noble’s lobbyists in the state include Ted Trimpa, a Democratic power broker who remains an influential critic of anti-fracking ballot measures, as he was during the 2014 fight the governor helped defuse.

Colorado Oil and Gas Association President Dan Haley said the industry’s arguments against the anti-fracking measures would include ample warnings of their economic side effects. “If these measures somehow make the ballot, Colorado voters will know exactly what’s at stake: private property rights, more than $1 billion in state and local taxes that help pay for schools, parks, libraries and roads, energy security for our nation, and the good-paying jobs of more than 100,000 working families across our state," he said in a statement this week.

Protect Colorado had $9.1 million cash on hand at the beginning of the month, money it could spend on advertising, mailers and organizing ahead of the November election. For now, the group remains skeptical that the initiatives will get on the ballot. "Was it all a publicity stunt to advance their agenda or a serious attempt to ban fracking in Colorado?" the group asked in a statement Tuesday. "Your guess is as good as ours."

The anti-fracking campaign, meanwhile, had raised just $424,000 as of Aug. 1, including $25,000 from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), the wealthy entrepreneur-turned-lawmaker. (That’s just a 30th of what he donated to 2014’s anti-fracking campaign.)After the most recent campaign finance reports were filed with the Colorado secretary of state, the Sierra Club gave $150,000, making it the largest singlereported contributor to the anti-fracking effort.

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who spent $8.5 million in Colorado during the 2014 election, has not donated to the anti-fracking campaign, and there are no signs he plans to get involved if the measures make the ballot.The League of Conservation Voters' Colorado chapter has endorsed oneof the two initiatives but is not committing money. The Environmental Defense Fund is also sitting out the effort.

Anti-fracking activists say they have submitted more than 100,000 signatures, apparently leaving themselves little room for error if any of those are found to be invalid. The secretary of state's office has until Sept. 7 to verify that at least 98,492 of those signatures came from registered voters in the state and certify the initiatives to appear on the ballot.

A spokeswoman for the office,Lynn Bartels, rankled activists by appearing to cast doubt on their likelihood for success on Tuesday with a Twitter post that noted: “Proponents of fracking measures turned in lots of boxes with very few petitions in them.”

Despite their sparse resources, organizers are confident in their prospects of making the ballot.

“It was a really amazing effort, especially in response to the intimidation that was going on in terms of convincing people not to sign,” said activist Joellen Raderstorf, who helped organize the Yes for Health and Safety Over Fracking campaign.

Clinton aligned with the ballot initiatives, at least in principle, during an interview with Denver's NBC station last week, promising to enable more local control over fracking if she wins the White House. “I have long been in favor of states, and cities within states, making up their own minds about whether or not they want to permit fracking,” she said.

Perhaps surprisingly, Trump also embraced local control over fracking in an exchange with the same TV station last month, despite rolling out an energy agenda that calls for vastly more U.S. oil and gas production.

"I'm in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,” said the Republican nominee, whose top energy advisers include fracking titan Harold Hamm. “I mean, there's some areas, maybe, that don't want to have fracking, and I think if the voters are voting for it that's up to them."

Industry sources in Colorado say they are not worried about Trump's position on fracking.

In contrast to Trump and Clinton, Hickenlooper has criticized one of the ballot measures, Initiative 78, which would require a 2,500-foot distance between fracking operations and high-traffic areas such as parks or hospitals. "If you ban fracking within 2,500 feet or you say you can’t drill anything within 2,500 feet, in essence you’re taking away somebody’s private property,” he said during a POLITICO policy discussion during last month’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (Anti-fracking activists repeatedly interrupted his appearance with protests.)

The other measure, Initiative 75, would update the state constitution to allow for more local control over fracking, including letting cities ban the practice altogether.

Over the next several weeks, as the secretary of state's office nears its deadline for certifying the signature count, Colorado's major Democratic players are likely to face further pressure to weigh in on the anti-fracking measures. Polling is scant, but a 2014 survey showed state voters supporting more local control.

Bennet, considered one of his party's most vulnerable members facing reelection this year, indirectly pointed to the challenge that the anti-fracking measures pose for Democrats by agreeing with both sides of the battle.

"In general, I'd rather decide these things in a conversation in our state than have them on the ballot and in our constitution," Bennet told Denver’s ABC station last week. But he also acknowledged the “reasonable concern” by locals about oil and gas development nearing residential property, adding that "we've got to work through those kind of conflicts."